The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. In a case where there is no concern that the defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense may not substantially disadvantage the defendant, even if the court acknowledged facts different from the facts charged without following the amendment of a bill of indictment within the same scope (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1651, Jun. 30, 2011). In a case where the court recognizes that the defendant was prosecuted for the same offense in collusion with others, it cannot be said that the defendant needs to amend a bill of indictment in a case where it does not necessarily cause any substantial disadvantage to the defendant in exercising his/her right to defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do1911 Decided July 23, 199 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do1911, Jul. 23, 199). In addition, an act of a person who keeps and manages money, etc. for another person by entering into a construction contract with a construction business operator, etc. in advance by entering into a contract for a construction project with the construction business operator, etc. and receiving a part of the construction cost overpaid therefrom from the construction business operator constitutes embezzlement of the amount equivalent to the construction cost paid excessively in relation to the other person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3399, May

The facts charged in this case are as follows: "Defendant M et al. (hereinafter referred to as "M") around November 2007."

When concluding a construction contract with N representative director, Chocheon-gu, Dong-gu, I University's assistance officer, and sports center's construction contract with the N, 600,000 won per hour compared to the actual construction cost, and 50,000 won per hour compared to the actual construction cost, and 60,000 won per hour.